Website Feedback
Closed Threads
IRC Chat
irc.quakenet.org #teamliquid
IRC Web ClientTeamSpeak 3 (102 users) | |
|
| [F_]aths Germany. June 15 2012 19:14. Posts 2766 | Profile Blog # |
On June 14 2012 18:58 i)awn wrote:
The only reason I bought SC2 is beacause I'm was a fan of SC1. What's wrong in being a fan of a unit? In any regards, giving the carrier a speed boost ability, a build time decrease and maybe a bit of extra range to match broolord range is enough. It'll be a great backdooring unit now that you can retreat with it after the speed boost ability.
It still is not viable to have a unit in the game just because it was a good SC1 unit. The unit must serve a role in the game which makes the game exciting. Instead of having all the trouble to fix a unit which fells out of the concept, it is better to replace it with a new unit.
If SC2 would be made only to relive SC1 battles, we would't need SC2 since we could play the original game in the first place. |
| | You don't choose to play zerg. The zerg choose you. |  |
|
|
| Mordanis United States. June 15 2012 19:22. Posts 716 | Profile Blog # |
| I'm honestly thinking of literally putting my money where my mouth is. I have 2 sc2 accounts, and I'm tempted to only purchase 1 expansion if they actually take away the carrier. If they at least tried something, that'd be acceptable. But it seems that they just want other things and think the tempest is more interesting. WTF, it's another long-range unit, but without high dps or aoe? How is that more exciting than little ships launching out of a space carrier? Is anyone else willing to withhold their purchasing abilities if Blizz doesn't at least try anything? |
| | I love the smell of napalm in the morning... it smells like... victory. -_^ Favorite SC2 match ->Liquid`HerO vs. SlayerS CranK g.1 @MLG Summer Championship |
|
|
 GeNeSiDe United Kingdom. June 15 2012 22:14. Posts 354 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 19:22 Mordanis wrote:
I'm honestly thinking of literally putting my money where my mouth is. I have 2 sc2 accounts, and I'm tempted to only purchase 1 expansion if they actually take away the carrier. If they at least tried something, that'd be acceptable. But it seems that they just want other things and think the tempest is more interesting. WTF, it's another long-range unit, but without high dps or aoe? How is that more exciting than little ships launching out of a space carrier? Is anyone else willing to withhold their purchasing abilities if Blizz doesn't at least try anything?
To all the people saying this, all i have to say for you is....YOU WONT DO SHIT.
Your already admitting your going to buy 1 copy, you've broken already.
Trust in Blizzard, when do they let us down? |
| | http://soundcloud.com/eastmanmusic Check out my latest sc2 song "Masters League!" |  |
|
|
| nihoh Australia. June 15 2012 22:21. Posts 937 | Profile Blog # |
I think we should fight for the Interceptor, not the Carrier.
The Interceptor attack style is needed because it's one of the defining racial features of Protoss. Making units on the field of battle, out of a moving factory. We saw this in the Reaver, we saw this in the Carrier, SC2 protoss _NEEDS_ to have a mobile factory unit. I'd be happy if the Tempest "built" its attack and laucnehd it. |
| | Dont look at the finger or you will miss all that heavenly glory. |
|
|
| sluggaslamoo Australia. June 15 2012 22:22. Posts 3491 | Profile Blog # |
On June 15 2012 17:43 Rabiator wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 15:09 Kharnage wrote:
On June 15 2012 15:00 HelioSeven wrote:
On June 15 2012 13:58 NicolBolas wrote:
On June 15 2012 10:04 HelioSeven wrote:
On June 15 2012 00:50 NicolBolas wrote:
It's very much like the Carrier. The SC1 Carrier.
It will transfer this damage to other targets within range if one target is dead.
Forgive me for being ignorant of Brood War (I was an AoE2 guy up until WoL), but didn't the BW carrier automatically target new units within the extended range? That's my my whole gripe with the SC2 carrier, is that in order for a carrier to prioritize new targets for the interceptors to shoot at the carriers have to be within the standard range of 8, and the extended range of 14 is only in effect as long as the current target is still alive. If a carrier had to move into range 8 to launch newly made interceptors, but could still engage at the extended range by prioritizing new targets for the interceptors currently in battle, that would give a) the Protoss player a chance to micro and b) the opponent an incentive to kill off interceptors (in order to force the carrier back in close to launch reinforcements). How would that not fix like everything?
Because it does nothing to change the fact that Marines devour Intercepters, regardless of whether the Carriers happen to be nearby or not. It does nothing to change the fact that Vikings still have ridiculous range and can fly over terrain to shoot the Carriers. The most it might do is make a Zerg build more Corruptors, since it will be more difficult for Infestors to deal with Carriers. Though Infested Terrans can still put a good hurting on Intercepters, and Roaches still have good armor and enough HP to just take it to some degree. The Carrier is simply not favored by the rest of SC2's units. It's just not going to be viable until that changes.
Haha, some things of note as someone who has used carriers in PvT at times. Vikings are not so good against carriers. While they seem like the obvious anti-air of choice, their range is still negated by the extended range of carriers with good micro. That along side with vikings low armor and mid-tier health means they melt against the opening salvo with graviton catapult. Marines are the much bigger problem (BCs in the late game but that's another story). Bio is the reason carrier rarely work in PvT. I'm still adamant that carriers will be more viable when mech TvP becomes viable, but it does sometimes work against bio if your opponent gets to marauder heavy, or goes mech heavy leaving him with not enough marines. But marines were the anti-carrier in BW too, weren't they? In PvZ though, I think it would make huge improvements to the late game situation of infestor/BL/corruptor/crawlers. Carriers are the natural answer, they're just difficult to use at the moment because they constantly have to be within range 8 (and are thus really susceptible to anti-air). It would make them better at hit and run, it would make them better in large engagements, and it would make them more interesting and useful units in the long run. You don't really seem to understand how good late game Skytoss VR/carrier w/ HTs comp is against roaches and corruptors. Neural parasite and fungal are the real problem. Re-targeting is a serious need for carriers. Especially if it is to play against the new viper (which, sadly, it probably wont T.T).
forget it. I'm trying to picture carriers vs speed hydras and failing miserably.
The only way that could reasonably work is with less-than-open-terrain and the Carriers attacking from an angle where the Hydras cant follow. You would have to whittle down the Zerg slowly but steadily, but even then the new Viper unit basically kills that concept with their - IMO really stupid - ability to drag a unit to them and into the range of other units. That ability basically counters EVERY "expensive but tough" unit for any opponent (in its current form). If the Viper was "unique" and expensive as the Mothership it might work, but as this?
Carriers in combination with Reavers and Corsairs was extremely powerful even against 1 supply hydras. |
| | BW: Slugger[wOk] feel free to add | No Tidehunter |  |
|
|
| Stratos_speAr United States. June 15 2012 22:25. Posts 3729 | Profile # |
If they allowed the Carrier to be micro'd (change it so it works the same way that it did in BW), gave it an upgrade for a speed boost, made Interceptors auto-return to regen health as in BW (I'm under the impression that they currently don't), and maybe reduced the build time (especially for Interceptors), it would become a seriously viable unit.
That, or just scrap the Tempest and give the Carrier 22 range.
The Carrier is one of the top five most iconic Starcraft units in the entire series; it would be rather sad if Blizzard was incapable of making them good enough to keep. |
| | A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else. |  |
|
|
| Telenil France. June 15 2012 22:26. Posts 353 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 19:14 [F_]aths wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 14 2012 18:58 i)awn wrote:
The only reason I bought SC2 is beacause I'm was a fan of SC1. What's wrong in being a fan of a unit? In any regards, giving the carrier a speed boost ability, a build time decrease and maybe a bit of extra range to match broolord range is enough. It'll be a great backdooring unit now that you can retreat with it after the speed boost ability.
It still is not viable to have a unit in the game just because it was a good SC1 unit. The unit must serve a role in the game which makes the game exciting. Instead of having all the trouble to fix a unit which fells out of the concept, it is better to replace it with a new unit.
At the moment, the concept of the tempest is "T3 unit with a long range that is used to break siege lines and take down units from afar". It's almost the exact same concept the carrier had.
The Tempest is a unit that stays idle at huge range and shoots energy balls until it stops having vision on its targets. Carriers, on the other hand, shoot on the move and have potential for a much more interesting micro.
So I do not believe that there is an insurmountable problem with the concept of the carrier. |
|
|
| blackhole12 June 15 2012 22:31. Posts 42 | Profile # |
| I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War. |
|
|
| Stratos_speAr United States. June 15 2012 22:36. Posts 3729 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War.
Blizzard is still responsible for keeping WoL as a Starcraft game; if they scrapped all of the most iconic units, it wouldn't be much of a Starcraft game.
That said, that isn't even the sole reason that the Carrier should stay. The Tempest will not be loved nearly as much as the carrier. Why? Because it's fucking boring. It's a 22 range unit that just sits there with an incredibly slow attack speed and shoots a ball of energy. No micro, nothing distinguishing about it (except for maybe its shape). It's the same reason that people complained about Reaver -> Colossus; not only does it get rid of an iconic unit, but it replaces a very interesting unit with something that is very boring. Blizzard has a hard time balancing these units with interesting dynamics, so they just remove them and replace them with something that is balanced but incredibly boring, and that's not ok for most of us.
The Carrier, on the other hand, has an incredible amount of potential for micro and uniqueness. |
| | A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else. | |
|
|
| FakeDeath Malaysia. June 15 2012 22:43. Posts 3966 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War.
Tempest??Seriously?
The Carrier would be better since in SC2 at least you need to micro them.
With the 22 range and it's slow dps, how it is better?
They are probably sitting somewhere far away and launching artillery shock balls to counter BLs?Really?Last edit: 2012-06-15 22:45:03 |
| |
|
| Silencioseu Cyprus. June 15 2012 22:43. Posts 448 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 19:22 Mordanis wrote:
I'm honestly thinking of literally putting my money where my mouth is. I have 2 sc2 accounts, and I'm tempted to only purchase 1 expansion if they actually take away the carrier. If they at least tried something, that'd be acceptable. But it seems that they just want other things and think the tempest is more interesting. WTF, it's another long-range unit, but without high dps or aoe? How is that more exciting than little ships launching out of a space carrier? Is anyone else willing to withhold their purchasing abilities if Blizz doesn't at least try anything?
Be honest, how many times have you used the carrier and with what purpose. On the other side the Tempest works great as a siege unit, zoning unit, and sniping unit. |
| | i kno i r badass no need to repeat | |
|
|
| Stratos_speAr United States. June 15 2012 22:48. Posts 3729 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:43 Silencioseu wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 19:22 Mordanis wrote:
I'm honestly thinking of literally putting my money where my mouth is. I have 2 sc2 accounts, and I'm tempted to only purchase 1 expansion if they actually take away the carrier. If they at least tried something, that'd be acceptable. But it seems that they just want other things and think the tempest is more interesting. WTF, it's another long-range unit, but without high dps or aoe? How is that more exciting than little ships launching out of a space carrier? Is anyone else willing to withhold their purchasing abilities if Blizz doesn't at least try anything?
Be honest, how many times have you used the carrier and with what purpose. On the other side the Tempest works great as a siege unit, zoning unit, and sniping unit.
That's not a good argument at all. The point is that they should make the Carrier viable because it is 1) incredibly iconic to the SC franchise, 2) can, with the right tweaks, fill the same role as the Tempest, and 3) is far more interesting for both Protoss players and spectators in every way possible when compared to the Tempest.Last edit: 2012-06-15 22:48:36 |
| | A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else. | |
|
|
| FakeDeath Malaysia. June 15 2012 22:49. Posts 3966 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:43 Silencioseu wrote:
Show nested quote +On June 15 2012 19:22 Mordanis wrote:
I'm honestly thinking of literally putting my money where my mouth is. I have 2 sc2 accounts, and I'm tempted to only purchase 1 expansion if they actually take away the carrier. If they at least tried something, that'd be acceptable. But it seems that they just want other things and think the tempest is more interesting. WTF, it's another long-range unit, but without high dps or aoe? How is that more exciting than little ships launching out of a space carrier? Is anyone else willing to withhold their purchasing abilities if Blizz doesn't at least try anything?
Be honest, how many times have you used the carrier and with what purpose. On the other side the Tempest works great as a siege unit, zoning unit, and sniping unit.
The reason why people are fighting for carriers is because the carriers have so much potential but Blizz would not bother
to either buff it a little for viability like maybe its movement speed or anything.
They don't even bother to give a small buff which will actually motivate people to go for Carrier play.
Plus, it is an iconic unit.
They are just gonna scrapped it and replaced it with the Tempest.
I have played the tempest and it is not a siege unit more like an artillery unit like its ****ing 22 range.
And also with its slow dps, i find it a boring unit which does not need any form of micro like the carriers which at least need some micro skills.Last edit: 2012-06-15 22:51:37 |
| |
|
| TSBspartacus England. June 15 2012 22:52. Posts 850 | Profile # |
I'd like Protoss to have another viable T3 tech choice. Because you get templar/archon and colossus, and carriers just aren't viable.
Zerg gets Ultra's and Broodlords, I think it would be cool for them to have another too, but they are being buffed so much in HOTS with so many more viable playstyles.
Terran gets thors, bc's, and 3/3 marines, but tbh they need viable late game other than stim bio.
Hoping blizzard will realize this and make the late game compositions a lot more varied and viable.
Also, interceptors should be free, this would make carriers a viable siege unit along with increased range. Then it would be like broodlords, which are such an OP design, but have to be like that for zerg anyway, why not give protoss and terran similar things in order for effective late game sieges. |
| |
|
| FakeDeath Malaysia. June 15 2012 22:59. Posts 3966 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:52 TSBspartacus wrote:
I'd like Protoss to have another viable T3 tech choice. Because you get templar/archon and colossus, and carriers just aren't viable.
Zerg gets Ultra's and Broodlords, I think it would be cool for them to have another too, but they are being buffed so much in HOTS with so many more viable playstyles.
Terran gets thors, bc's, and 3/3 marines, but tbh they need viable late game other than stim bio.
Hoping blizzard will realize this and make the late game compositions a lot more varied and viable.
Also, interceptors should be free, this would make carriers a viable siege unit along with increased range. Then it would be like broodlords, which are such an OP design, but have to be like that for zerg anyway, why not give protoss and terran similar things in order for effective late game sieges.
The problem isn't interceptors being free.
When i see toss going carrier play, i will just laugh and build 10+ corruptors and own them.
The problem is that carriers are easily hardcountered by vikings and corruptors |
| |
|
| TSBspartacus England. June 15 2012 23:04. Posts 850 | Profile # |
| yeah but with increased range and free interceptors combined carriers would be a lot more viable, forcing the opponent to engage. But yeah as it is its a problem since Vikings and Corrupters are likely to be out on the field anyway. I just think that this might make it more viable in WoL. Given whats currently planned for HotS I have no idea how they could fit in. Maybe a glorious return in the third protoss expansion? |
| |
|
| uikos United States. June 15 2012 23:12. Posts 121 | Profile Blog # |
I'm not a master in War3, but in War3, there were abilities such as phase-shift (on the farie dragon, invulnerability for a few seconds after being attacked) and Hardened Skin(on the mountain giant, essentially the opposite of Hardened Shields where instead of being dealt a maximum amount of damage, it can only be dealt a minumum amount of damage and anything else is roughly mitigated). I feel like these ideas would be really useful for the carrier and/or its interceptors.
I'm sure Blizzard (being the developers of both War3 and Sc2) has thought of these ideas already, but I would agrue that these might be worth looking into again. |
| | I'm in love with Hero~ |  |
|
|
| TigerKarl June 15 2012 23:13. Posts 1482 | Profile # |
| The Carrier can not live on in his current shape. Blizzard has to change it to make it a interesting and useful unit like in Brood War. Right now it's just a rather weak a-move unit. |
| |
|
| rd United States. June 15 2012 23:18. Posts 2068 | Profile # |
On June 15 2012 22:31 blackhole12 wrote:
I hope Blizzard doesn't give in to these complaints about the Carrier. Maybe it's an iconic unit, but the Tempest seems to fit better gameplay wise. I didn't see the law that said Brood War units must be preserved at all costs. Give the Tempest a chance and perhaps you'll learn to love that too, if people complained liked this and Blizzard gave in for every unit replacement from Brood War to Wings of Liberty the game would be way worse and just a bad copy of Brood War.
These complaints are legitimate. They nerfed it into oblivion from BW and refused to touch it since release. This isn't an issue of preserving BW units. They're taking a unit that has seen viability in PvT/PvZ and scrapping builds because they don't read any forums and apparently only see the argument that, you too, only see.
Instead of buffing the infestor they should have just removed it too I guess.
|
|
|
| trekala Romania. June 15 2012 23:19. Posts 24 | Profile # |
| make the interceptors free to build and make them fly at 22 range! |
|
|
| Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 Next | |
|
|
|
| |
|
Sidebar Settings...
|
Store
